Home

  • Bringing back conscription to Europe – an opportunity beyond defending societies

    Map available from: https://www.statista.com/chart/3907/the-state-of-military-conscription-around-the-world/

    A recent conversation with a friend graduated in international relations prompted us to ponder about how military conscription is being reinstated in several NATO countries (such as Latvia and Sweden) – partly due to the Russian invasion to Ukraine and its aggressive stance towards Europe, and partly due to recent comments to Donald Trump (for now, as a candidate for a second stint of the US presidency), who statements suggested he would encourage military aggression against NATO countries who would not pay their contributions.

    For the past few decades (mostly during the 1990’s till the early 2010’s), many NATO countries have phased out military conscription, either due to the (then new), post Cold War hopes for global peace and cooperation, and to reduce the share of military expenses in increasing constrained budgets . In an era of increased personal freedoms and globalisation, the end of conscription was seen by many young people as a welcome departure from older values,

    In Portugal (my country of birth), military drafting ended in 2004. By the time I turned 18 years old, all I was expected to do was to attend a ‘Day of National Defence’, where we were encouraged to enlist on a professional, contract basis – for what I understand, a similar system used by the US Armed Forces.

    The world has changed a lot in such a short time – between the threat of global terrorism, wars in the vicinity of Europe and the rise of multiple military powers across the world, the old continent is lagging behind in defence matters – add the relative stagnation of the European continent in economic, technological and cultural terms, and we see the continent struggling to project itself in the global scene.

    The disinvestment in the military across Europe means that, as of 2023, only 11 out of the 30 NATO countries met the commitment of allocating at least 2% of their budget to defence – and this in the context of the Ukraine war, that led to a surge in military investment across. As per this Statista’s article , the United States makes up the bulk of the Alliance’s contributions. The political twists and turns in that country suggest that the over-reliance in the American defence shield cannot be taken for granted, especially as Trump has strong prospects to be reelected as the US president.

    Interestingly, countries that did not join the military alliance such as Switzerland and Austria never abolished conscription – but instead offered alternative options for service for those unable or unwilling to enrol in military service.

    This means an urgency for European nations to revamp its military capabilities, in both technical and human resources. This does not mean that we may be heading to another race to arms or a military stand-off. If well implemented, it may be a good thing.

    In spite of all its obvious potential for destruction, death and suffering (which should be avoidable at all costs) , military conflicts or the possibility of them often bring technological advancements that later on are passed on the benefit the lives of common people. Inventions such as the radar, the GPS or even medical advancements had their origins in the military realm. The nuclear detente between the US and the USSR brought decades of peace among the European nations until the end of the Cold War put an end to the existing balances, leading to conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and the Caucasus.

    Within the modern era, the nature of conflicts has changed, as seen by the use of drones to conduct attacks in Ukraine, or social media to encourage people to join the Islamic State is showing that conventional warfare is not the only way to wage wars. Global cooperation and the use of a decades-old military alliances such as NATO allows nations to pool-in resources to effectively create strategies to prepare for the new battlefields, creating the technological skills and resources to shape and win the battles of today and tomorrow. It may allow countries to create alternative ways to face even more traditional battlefields, especially smaller nations with limited military capabilities. Even the partial adoption of modern warfare has helped Ukraine to stall the advance of the much larger Russian army, who seemed to rely (at least initially), on more traditional battlefield techniques.

    Whereas such resources will likely demand the use of less soldiers in the battlefield (thus avoiding the loss of countless lives and resources as well as stirring the public opinion), these are still required – thus the role of conscription. But again, a seemingly unpopular idea can be used for the wider good, much beyond the narrative of defending countries against invasions or their cooperation in peace-keeping missions abroad.

    As conflicts change, the nature of the soldier is transforming itself as well. The proportion of military personnel in direct combat vs supply and support lines has steadily declined from 28% in WW1 to 11% in the Iraq war. With the newer forms of warfare, is well possible that the need of human combat forces in frontline roles will decline further – but to achieve this, the remainder of the forces has to be highly specialised in a series of roles such as IT, electronics, mechanical engineering, communications, etc. The internet means that significant portions of the population may be influenced or even indoctrinated with ideas hostile to the interests of their nations and people, possibly creating toxic cleavage within their societies, as it may be already the case with extremists groups, as some alt-right or left movements across the world.

    By engaging the youth (or even older adults, as it is the case in countries such as Switzerland or Israel), in serving their communities and nations, we can be serving purposes that may benefit directly the individuals taking part in it – physically, ideologically and skills-wise.

    As traditional warfare will not disappear anytime soon, and it requires individuals to acquire a level of fitness required for military preparedness. By allowing individuals to explore and develop their physical abilities, there are some obvious health benefits to it, and may instil some (hopefully) good lifelong habits – think of it as preventive medicine.

    Ideologically, it is an opportunity to re-engage individuals into a wider purpose. To rally them behind the defence of their communities, nations, lively hoods, may give to many individuals a purpose that may be otherwise lacking – people from fragile backgrounds or outside of the more mainstream society may be offered ways to feel more engaged. But unlike past experiences, doing so in a way that acknowledges the varied society, democratic we have today, and that allows individuals to find in themselves different ways to serve – and that does not have to be strictly in the traditional military sense. It also allows an opportunity, within the context of liberal democracies, to teach people how to read and understand news, do fact-checking, develop analytical and critical thinking and stay away from extremist ideas.

    Thus meet education, and the main point of this article! As mentioned before, the changing nature of defence requires a wider range of skills, beyond military drills. Add the teaching of skills that can be used in both the military and civilian life, we may create a giant apprenticeship model, where people may discover (and eventually develop), medical, mechanical, IT, administrative, and so many other skills. Conscription has to be seen as a meaningful part of life, where one is not just ‘wasting time, but instead to learn valuable life lessons that would be harder to acquire otherwise. The possibility that some individuals may want to stay in the armed forces for longer than their conscription period entails must must come perks such as the ability of further developing skills that are transferable or complementary with life outside of the armed forces.

    My two cents on the matter are – bring back conscription, but make it relevant – for the nations and to the individuals. Make it an instrument of integration of a society, a guarantee of its defence, and a deterrent for conflicts. The costs for the nations would be considerable, but the cost of fear and war are immesurable. Property done, it can become an investment that can be paid-off in the shape of a more unified and harmonious society, and ultimately better prepared individually and as a whole.

    What are your thoughts on this article? I would love to read your feedback and ideas on this theme.

    , , , , , , ,

  • Israel vs. Palestine – 75 years of a messy history

    Hopes for peace someday (image taken from ‘Vector Portal’ https://vectorportal.com/vector/israel-palestine-peace-vector.ai/1613)

    One more conflict in the Middle East, yet again. Hamas militants fired thousands of rockets over Israeli territory, with several militants entering Israel itself and engaging in fighting with IDF troops, with hostages been taken back to Gaza. So far, the Israelis have responded with heavy bombing over Gaza, with likely heavier military action to come. It’s war, that was one of the few points both sides seem to agree. The whole world seems to agree no one will win with this mess – but surely civilian lives will be lost, with further pain, distrust and tensions to remain for a long time to come.

    The horrors shown by television reporters are added by the reports of civilians. From the abductions, rapes and executions done by Hamas militants in Israeli Territory, to the Israeli bombings in densely populated Gaza which, even when targeted, inevitably hit women and children, there’s plenty to pity and abhor ob both side. In the end, all sides will lose – its just a matter of having the other side losing more.

    This post is a divisive for me – I grew up harbouring a strong admiration for Israel, its history and successes against much larger neighbours. But with years gone by, I got to learn better about the challenges of the Palestinian people, and the consistent delays in allowing an independent Arab state to come to life. This is further compounded by having friends who originally came from the Gaza Strip, whose life stories and current worries made me think ‘this is going too far’.

    Maybe I should start with the end – this crisis will only end once Palestine becomes a sovereign state. Throughout the years, the suffering of Palestinians (either caused by Israel’s occupation or Palestine’s own corrupt institutions and leaders), carved one of the strongest national identities in the Arab world (something that is not a given in a region where one’s own ethnic or religious identity supersedes national loyalties). A nation that has been repeatedly delayed, either by the greediness of Arab leaders in 1948 who did not accept the existence of a Jewish state (thus launching a war against Israel and losing it), which led Egypt to occupy Gaza, and Jordan to annex the West Bank (however, giving full citizenship rights to their new population), a subsequent war in 1967 that led to another defeat and Israeli occupation, or the increased Israeli encroachments on West Bank’s lands, and Gaza’s alienation once Hamas won elections there in 2006. The case for the occupation by Israel had (till recently), becoming weaker, especially as it is turning into an increasingly desperate situation in the Gaza Strip, allowing groups such as Hamas to exploit the desperation of the local people, and creating increasingly difficult situations on both sides of the conflict. The more we delay the creation of a Palestinian state, the longer it will take to disempower extremism from both sides of the conflict, and more people will lose their lives, either in war or misery.

    Now on the Israel side – my teenage years were spent reading eagerly about on how one of the most neglected areas of the former Ottoman Empire received increasing numbers of Jewish settlers escaping increasing persecutions throughout the world, eventually culminating in the Holocaust. A people without a state for over two millennia, who, once finally got it, opened their doors to Jews all over the world, sometimes even rescuing them from places where they where either in danger (Arab countries), or starving (Ethiopia, where the local Jewish community was virtually entirely relocated to Israel under any means possible).

    A country which faced great military difficulties both militarily and economically, but was able to make good use of massive US and International support to create one of the most prosperous, democratic, egalitarian multicultural (Jews from all kinds of origins and backgrounds live there), and technologically advanced societies in the world – that gap is particularly wide if we compare with the scene in the Middle East, where corruption, sectarianism and extremism are pulling their societies back, leading to war, and unprecedented refugee crisis. It is not hard to see why many ‘Westerners’ would rather relate to Israel. They build a country under very difficult circumstances, revived an existing language (Hebrew has today over 9 million speakers, compared to none in the late 19th century), created institutions (such as the legendary Kibbutz, or communal farms) to integrate their new citizens. Even with well documented abuses over Palestine, over 20% of their population is made of Arab Israelis, who enjoy full citizen rights (even if at times flawed), have their political parties, have Arab as one of the country’s official languages, and are exempt from the famously know compulsory military service. Unlike neighbouring countries, where their former Jewish populations had to flee.

    Not to say that that Israel is above reproach. The politics are becoming increasingly polarised, with the Prime Minister being highly controversial. Years of violence turned the society more polarised, with Jewish conservative groups and even extremists becoming more vocal and influential in society. A Judicial reform enacted in earlier 2023 would reduce the power of the Judicial institutions to challenge the government. The massive protests that ensued showed how deeply divided the Israel society became (however, such divisions seem to disappear in times of war). The country’s attitudes towards Palestinians and even their own Arab Israeli citizens are becoming more unacceptable, and a shot in the foot – the result of it is now visible.

    But ultimately, my attitude is of an angry condemnation of Hamas’ actions. They knew that, by launching thousands of rockets over Israeli soil, they would cause a violent response from a much stronger adversary (Israel won all their previous 8 wars!). Such response would be over a very densely populated area where civilian and military targets live side by side, and where 43% of the population is younger than 14 years old. In the name of acquiring a higher ’moral ground’, they are willingly sacrificing the lives of their own people, and trying to justify it through faith. Huge amounts of money wasted in rockets and military equipment, but no provisions were made to protect their population against the humanitarian disaster that is unfolding – by the contrary, they use if as a way to say ‘look at what are the Israelis doing to our people’!

    They were elected in 2006 in the hopes they would root out corruption in the region, but they simply took advantage to turn the it in their favour. The Israeli blockade compounded the economic tragedy in Gaza, but Hamas uses it as a way to justify their own presence and actions.

    If they were told ‘Palestine can become independent tomorrow, just step down’ – would they allow the dream of millions of Palestinians to become true, or would they rather cling to power, perpetuating the misery of the people they were meant to serve?

    Ultimately, peace must prevail. Not just one where guns are silent, but where people are at peace with themselves, and free to pursue their dreams. The world’s patience on Israel has been waning in recent years, and the Arab world, for all its loud rhetoric, has long given up on the Palestinian cause, preferring to use it to fit internal agendas rather than serving one of their own.

    Both sides deserve peace. Both must have their independent nations, with safe borders, and reassured people.

    I close this post with a memory. Years ago, I stayed at a hostel in Berlin. One of my roommates was an Israeli guy who had recently completed his military service. His friendly and cheerful demeanour reminded me a lot of a dear Palestinian friend (originally from Gaza). I thought then ‘those two would have gotten along really well, they are so much alike’. I hope that they can meet someday, and feel the same about each other.

    , , , , , ,

  • I became a British Citizen!

    Being a citizen of the country we chose to live – A sense of belonging and security.

    Today’s post is a personal and somehow emotional one for me. Earlier this week, after almost a decade of living, working and studying in the UK, I became a British citizen!

    On a rather stormy day, I joined over 30 people in a simple, yet beautiful ceremony at a venue in a town nearby. A lady was playing some pleasant tunes in a harp while we were waiting for one of the officers to give us a formal welcome and some instructions about the event, followed by the Lord Lieutenant who gave us a welcome speech. After it, we had to swear either an affirmation or an oath of allegiance (we have the choice of either, the latter having references to God), to the King Charles III, followed by a pledge of commitment to the United Kingdom. We were then called one by one to receive the certificate of naturalisation (the one in the image above). The musician then played the National Anthem on the harp, marking the end of the ceremony (about 30 minutes in total), followed by tea and cakes.

    An apparent simplicity of the ceremony did not diminish the emotional meaning of it, which was visible among some of the participants. Even I was pondering on the moment as well – it was the end of a journey, from immigrant to citizen.

    I may have briefly mentioned before how tough (and ineffective), the UK immigration policy is. Since 2012, the British government has a set of policies that strongly restricts most forms of new immigration in the country, creating significant obstacles for migrants to settle in the country legally, and making the lives of illegal migrants in the country practically impossible. Part of this policy is known as a ‘Hostile Environment (the term was first mentioned by the then Home Office secretary Theresa May in 2012). The website ‘the3million’ describes it as:

    The ‘Hostile Environment’ is a set of measures, both administrative and legislative, to make life so miserable for anyone without immigration status, that they will ‘self-remove’.

    https://the3million.org.uk/hostile-environment#:~:text=The%20%27Hostile%20Environment%27%20is%20a,will%20%27self%2Dremove%27.

    Rising immigration in the country, especially from European Union (EU) migrants (since 2004, the net migration numbers have been over 300,000 people per year), where there was freedom of movement, and in more recent years, from non-EU countries have been a significant source of political and social debate in the country. Non-withstanding the significant labour shortages that have been observed during the last decade and the proven positive contributions that migrants have been bringing to the country, a significant portion of the society blames outsiders for the rising scarcity of housing, the pressure over healthcare and social services, and the dilution of British values and society.

    Immigration was a significant point of debate during the UK referendum on the EU membership in 2016, and likely one important reason that led to the country leaving the world’s most comprehensive, prosperous and powerful economic and political bloc in 2021.

    However, the hopes within some circles that Brexit would lead to a sharp reduction of net migration to the ‘tens of thousands’ were proven wrong – In 2022, the Office for National Statistics estimated a record net migration of 606,000 people – numbers partly boosted by refugees from Ukraine, a resettlement scheme for Hong-Kong residents and record numbers of international students and their dependants.

    Adding to these, the Home Office (the government department responsible for, among other things, the implementation of the immigration policies), has often made headlines for issues such as the Windrush scandal (the wrongful detainment, denial of legal rights and even deportation of people who settled in the UK from the Caribbean decades ago), plans to move asylum seekers to faraway countries or issues concerning the handling some immigration cases. The Home Secretary (Suella Braverman, herself the daughter of immigrants who came to the UK in the 1960’s) recently remarked that ‘multiculturalism has failed‘.

    In short, the whole immigration system in the country is set in a way that creates a lot of insecurity among immigrants.

    Back by own personal case – I have witnessed closely some cases where the Home Office has created significant difficulties to resolve the immigration statuses of some people, to the point that I view this department with some dismay. However… I cannot complain in any way about the form my own immigration situation has been handled throughout the years. Here’s a bit of my story.

    I arrived in the UK in 2014 as a EU citizen, meaning I had full rights to live and work in the country. The simplicity of whole process into settling in the country, added to being surrounded by a welcoming community made my integration a relatively easy process – it didn’t take a long for me to realise that I felt at home, and that I could wish one day to belong here more intimately, as a UK citizen.

    Fast forward to 2016, the results of the Brexit referendum brought panic among the European citizens living in the country. For the following three years, we got a sense that we were being used as a bargain chip against the EU to secure better terms of departure. The uncertainty about our future, followed by increasing reports of harassment to migrants and the fractures Brexit was creating in the society made me at times question my presence un the UK.

    In 2019, a migration deal was reached between the UK and the EU – all EU residents living in the country could apply for a EU Settlement Scheme which would allow us to keep all our rights in the country after its departure from the bloc. The terms were very generous, allowing all EU migrants to build a five year residency time that would give them permanent residence in the country (Settled Status). I applied for the scheme as soon as it was opened (it was an online and free process) and got a positive reply within a few weeks – which provided me with a sense of security, to some extent. The memories of the Windrush scandal (whose affected people had a somehow similar immigration status), were not the most reassuring for the long term.

    One year later, in 2020, I was eligible to apply for UK citizenship. But due to a virus going around, added by some personal circumstances and the steep cost (£1,300) of the application fee, I delayed the submission of the paperwork till recently.

    To kickstart the citizenship process, I needed to perform two tests. One is the Life in the UK test – a series of multiple answer questions that assess my knowledge about the country (think of basic history, country’s institutions, democracy and human rights, etc). The second was a IELTS test to prove I can speak English at a B1 level. If you are reasonably aware of the day to day life in the country, both tests are fairly accessible.

    The completion of the application forms was done online, but it was rather exhaustive – and exhausting. From details about myself and family, getting references and exhaustive details of the times I left the country (especially given my past frequent trips to Europe for extended weekends), it took a lot of details and detail to complete.

    Once the paperwork and the fee were paid, I had to attend an appointment at the UK visa office, where my documents were verified and my fingerprints/biometrics taken. It was now a question of waiting, hopefully for a positive reply.

    Months later, on my birthday, I checked my Inbox, and there it was:

    Citizenship ceremony invitation

    I am pleased to tell you that your application for British citizenship has been approved.

    From my own email inbox)

    From this to the actual booking of the ceremony was a quick process.

    Fast forward to today – this is an achievement that means a lot to me. I could mention the practical side – I can now make full use of my voting rights, any children I may have will be citizens from birth, I can come and go as needed or wished. Or can mention the emotional side – the country I adopted a decade ago has now formally adopted me – under the eyes of the law, I belong, I can give in full.

    I am now a dual citizen (joining ranks with over 1.2 million people in the UK, or 2.1% of the population), so I get to enjoy the best of both worlds ( Portugal and the UK). It opens more possibilities for me – in a globalised world, the advantages of having two passports (and very powerful ones) cannot be understated. I could settle tomorrow in Germany or Latvia as a Portuguese citizen. As a British citizen, I could travel visa-free to South Korea (sadly, none of them allow me to do the same for North Korea).

    One may ask ‘how to keep loyalties among two countries’? Well, most of us have two parents – do we ask ourselves who do we like more – our mom or dad? They have different roles in our lives, but they are equally important in the shaping of our identity.

    I am a Portuguese by birth, and Portugal means a lot to me. But I am extremely grateful as well for the opportunities that my adoptive country provided me, the knowledge, experience, care, and life I have here. I am amazed and proud of the feats of the British society, respect its history and traditions (even the cuisine – and that was a hard one). I learned how to love this country and people- sometimes with its disappointments, but ultimately, with a lot more positive things. The diversity, industry and dynamism of this nation is remarkable. This is home, for the good and bad!

    Another interesting fact, constantly mentioned in Portugal but little know in the UK, is that both countries have the oldest military alliance still standing! The Anglo-Portuguese Alliance has been in place since 1386, and, even with their hiccups, the countries were never at war against each other.

    One note – I live in a region where there is a lot of debate on whether it should remain part of the UK. I have friends and acquaintances who are keen to see a dramatic change in the political status of the region. I respect their reasoning and wishes, and their stories offer some good context to understand their points of view. If significant changes were to happen here in the future, I would hope for a peaceful and consensual outcome, and live up to the new realities.

    As of today, I embrace my new country with price and optimism, while wishing to be in the best terms with the people who may not feel the same way (that is the beauty of democracy). I want to do my part in building a better, more prosperous and harmonious society – from this week, I hope to be better equipped to do so.

    What are your thoughts this post? Do you have any stories concerning immigration or citizenship? I would love to know your opinions on this matter.

    , , , , ,

  • Salazar – 50 years of dictatorship in Portugal, another 50 years under its shade

    History is often best taught by those who are not attached to its events. As such, I have spent the past few years discovering and understanding some historical events under different perspectives. Whether conflicts such as the Falklands/Malvinas, Jammu and Kashmir, or even life under Communist regimes, there is a lot to learn from both sides of the story – even though it had not changed radically my view on things, it helped me to become a bit more attentive and acceptive of different view, and to learn that events (and even life), are not as straight forward as we first imagined.

    Such process is not always straight forward. From media to education, sometimes truth is not as straight forward as it seems, and occasionally, a few actors have an active interest that a particular narrative becomes prevalent. And yes, it is possible to have such view without subscribing to obscure theory conspiracies, and without having any doubts of the horrors of regimes such as Hitler or Pol Pot’s!

    This leads me to an important part of the Portuguese history that is a critical part of the local school curriculum, and a common feature of Portuguese media – the regime of Antonio Oliveira Salazar, who ruled Portugal as a Prime Minister between 1932 and 1968. The general consensus was he was a man with that he ruled over an authoritarian regime that kept the Portuguese Empire well after other countries had given up their colonies. However, whereas some would describe him as a financial genius and a statesman who kept Portugal’s finances balance for the first time in centuries and out of the violence of World War II, some others would see him as the front runner of a fascist regime responsible for political repression and economic stagnation.

    Most Portuguese sources and books about Salazar or his ‘Estado Novo’ (New State) regime lack some emotional distance from the facts (mostly have a negative leaning of them). In light of this, I acquired some time ago the book ‘Salazar – The Dictator Who Refused to Die’ from Tom Gallagher. My hopes were that a foreign author, who is well versed in Portuguese history (he is Political Scientist and a Professor at the University of Bradford with an extensive bibliography in European modern history).

    The (e)book I finally finished reading – as much as I love paper, sometimes its just easier or more convenient to read from a kindle – in the end, its about gathering information, or even the simple pleasure of reading.

    It was a fascinating biography into the life of the man who was voted in a 2007 TV show as ‘The Greatest Portuguese’ (to the shock of many in Portugal), and an interesting glimpse into the political and social life of Portugal from the 1930’s till the late 1960’s. It was not hard to notice that the author harboured some fascination for Salazar, and that he viewed the current democratic Portugal as flawed.

    A quick rundown on his biography and career- Salazar was born and grew up in a small village in central Portugal, in a family of small landowners. His modest upbringing (which influenced him throughout his life) would likely mean a meagre future in the Portugal of the early 20th century, wasn’t for his exceptional intelligence that earned him a free place at a seminary, and later one at the prestigious University of Coimbra, where he graduated in Law with distinction, but took a serious interest in Finance. From there, he grew a solid reputation as an academic, and as the author of some publications where he laid down the foundations of his future economic policies.

    Portugal’s early 20th century was marked by political upheaval – the toppling of the monarchy in 1910 was followed by the constant political and social instability of the 1st Republic, and later by the disastrous presence of Portugal in World War 1, with severe consequences in the economic sphere. This led to a military revolution in 1926.

    By then, Salazar had acquired a solid reputation within pro-Catholic, conservative political stances and ideas on how to better run the country’s economy. After a short stint in politics, he was invited to become a Finance minister in 1928 – within his first year in office, he presented the first (of many) budgetary surplus in Portugal for a long time.

    Such results allowed him to acquire growing powers over the state, to the point that in 1932, he was appointed the Prime Minister of Portugal. From then and up till 1968 (when a severed health problem led to his dismissal), Salazar used his wide powers to oversee the political, economical, military, diplomatic and even social standing of Portugal. During his tenure, Salazar whitenessed the rise of fascism (its often debated whereas Portugal was a fascist country, but it is agreed by its impact was much milder than in Germany or Italy) and its downfall with World War II (Salazar was skilfully able to keep Portugal away, in part due to fears of losing its colonies), the post-war reconstruction of Europe, and the decolonisation process that happened in most of the world, except for the territories under Portuguese administration (and which Salazar made a cornerstone of the Portuguese ethos).

    A period of relative social stability was often marked by political repression, where freedom of expression was limited. Currency stability and budget surpluses, followed by some mild investment in the economy did not address the poverty of Portugal. The economy was in the hands of a few bigger agents or corporations (the regime branded itself as ‘Corporativist’), which stifled both internal and external competition, and hindered the country’s development, and partly contributed to mass migrations from the 1960’s. Sectors such as education and healthcare saw a limited expansion, and by the 1970’s, Portugal had one of the highest illiteracy and infant mortality rates of Europe. Portugal was able to keep its colonial empire well later than the remaining European powers (up till 1975, except for Macau that was handed over to China in 1999), but at the cost of three colonial wars from the 1960’s onwards, which led to mass deployments of Portuguese troops, diverted scarce economic resources, and increased the migration flows.

    Salazar’s skills and intelligence were obvious throughout his tenure, with the ability of keeping a seemingly small country away from the growing tensions that marked Europe and the world during much of the century. He was also known for his modesty and ascetic living conditions (his office was not heated in order to save energy, and his living quarters were modestly furnished). His intelectual and retreated demeanour kept Portugal under a relatively sleepy peace throughout most of his regime, which contrasted with the horrors of the Civil War in next door’s Spain, and its leader’s (Francisco Franco), relatively pompous and lavish lifestyle.

    But such traits came at a cost – his conservative views, and his increasingly pessimistic outlook of the world led to policies that increasingly isolated Portugal from the wider world, and exacerbated its economical and social backwardness. And the effects on the Portuguese society can be felt to this day.

    And that is where my opinions become somehow ambivalent. Portugal’s democratic revolution of 1974 (fours years after Salazar’s death), is a hallmark in modern Portuguese history, celebrated yearly and mentioned often by all sectors of society. Its socialist leaning in theory widened the access of opportunities to the whole population, namely in terms of healthcare and education (where there have been a significant progress). It eventually allowed Portugal to joint the EEC (later European Union), and with this, the arrival of billions of euros in European funding to help improving Portugal’s infrastructure, modernise the economy and improve living standards.


    However, the current regime has failed to address issues that are very much related to the Portuguese way of thinking – Salazar’s regime (and the short lived tenure of his successor, Marcello Caetano), was a paternalistic one, which remove the people’s ability of making decisions, or seek something beyond their limited life expectations. It also encouraged social and business relations based on influences and personal connections, rather than skills and talent.
    This led to a society where hierarchies are more rigid, and where people are not encouraged to make decisions or take initiative. I recall from a personal experience that, while in Portugal, I was often met discouraging words such as ‘Why bother to try this?’ or ‘That’s too much effort’ for all sorts of small ideas of improvements.
    Corruption has frequently featured in national news, often from big companies or government officials. But small-clase issues such as underreporting earnings or fraudulent use of EU funding can be easily heard from friends, neighbours and acquaintances (ask any independent worker if they declare all their income to the Finance department, and the reply will be ‘Of course… not!’). Portugal has been receiving EU funding for over three decades, but this has often been misused and misspent in programmes of dubious use), and has done little to improve Portugal’s economic outlook, which is now in a worse position than many Central and Eastern European countries.

    However, the most glaring and unexpected conclusion that I came from reading this book, and about a decade away from Portugal, is that the current democratic regime has put itself as the antithesis of the past regime – often highlighting the excesses of the past, and even reshaping some of its historical figures to fit a narrative of a ‘dark dictatorial past’. These can range from whitewashing or enhancing the feats of former opposition figures such as Aristides de Sousa Mendes (responsible for the issuing of several thousands of visas to Jewish refugees during WW II), or Humberto Delgado (an opposition presidential candidate who was killed by the Portuguese Política Police in the 1960’s), or from overlooking excesses from the arrents happening shortly after the democratic revolutions (which in a space of months, largely exceeded the number of arrests of the former regime’s political police in almost 50 years), or the mismanagement that led the country to request IMF assistance three times in almost 50 years of democracy.
    I recall learning at school how horrible the dictatorship used to be, and the remarkable improvements that democracy brought, as a ‘from night to day’ perspective. But we seemed to be discouraged to challenge some of the events of the past, especially if these suggested some sympathy from the past.

    I am grateful for the social opportunities that democracy provided, and I do not believe a return to such past would be desirable. As a descendant of a family of white/mixed settlers who left Africa on the eve of their independence in 1975, the new beginnings in Portugal were tough. The educational opportunities I enjoyed would likely not be possible before 1974, as well as the freedom of movement that allowed me to move abroad legally. But I have to reckon that, with all its significant flaws, the authoritarian regime had its credits. Salazar had qualities that even contemporary opposition figures reckoned, and a consistency of character (even if bordering on stubbornness), that lack in many of the Portuguese leaders of today.
    Big corruption is publicly bashed, but as mentioned earlier, the small one is often excused as the only way to get by. Dissatisfaction towards country, work and life is rife, but people are often uncomfortable to stand out and mention or do something about it (lest they annoy someone who may later be useful to ‘get thing moving.’ I recall a complaint that I wanted to lodge at a train station was met with ‘Surely we can give you the complaints book, but that won’t lead to any outcome.’
    A lot of today’s economy relies on short-term gains and its too dependant on European handouts – a lot of the modest industrial and agricultural capacity of the past has been depreciated. The education system of today, in the effort of being inclusive to everyone, is often too simplistic, and lacks the ‘push’ to bring students (whether young or adult), to areas critical to the country’s future, such as IT or advanced sciences.

    If we have the power in democracy to change things, why do we limit ourselves? Why, as a people, we keep relying on superiors (and we treat them as some distant entity) to drive change, and if that happens, we then complain about the ‘ bother of changing things’? Is this the outcome of half a century of an authoritarian regime that dozed people’s minds, or just the way Portugal is? I would be keen to find out – especially as we have been sold the idea that today we can do more than we could in the past, we can choose the way we want things to be done, but we do not take advantage of this power! Is is possible that Salazar was right when feared that the Portuguese where not able to rule themselves?

    I leave you with a map from Landgeist’s ‘Getting ahead in life – What do Europeans thing is most important for getting ahead in life’. Most countries named either working hard or education – however, the Portuguese’s preferred answer was ‘coming from a wealthy family.’ The kind of answer that discourages a proper effort towards work and education, one that was quite suitable during the times of Salazar, where obedience and modesty were seen as virtues – but hardly the kind of mentality that can bring Portuguese people to the demands and expectations of the 21st century.

    Source – https://landgeist.com/2023/08/05/getting-ahead-in-life/ (July 2023)

    Do you experience similar challenges in your own country or region? I would love to read your comments and ideas!

    , ,
    , , , , , , ,

  • My trip to Portugal

    The town where I grew up – cozy, quiet (too quiet at times), in dire need of people and ideas.

    This post is a bit more personal, and somehow more based on heart than mind.
    I returned recently from a week-long holiday in Portugal. For anyone who has not read my posts or does not know me, I was born and grew up there. I travel back to this country occasionally to meet family and friends, good weather and great food. This time was special, as it was the first time that my wife could visit Portugal. Now that we are back to our adoptive country, we relish that week as filled with some of the sweetest moments of our lives so far.

    I left Portugal many years ago following a brief spell in Africa. Among many reasons to leave were the eagerness to experience new realities, and to escape the limitations of the Portuguese economy. Leaving was a decision that greatly expanded my horizons, as I have been exposed to situations, people, knowledge and ideas to an extent that would be unlikely to be matched within the comfort of ‘home’. There have been some career and economic benefits too. But there are trade-offs as well – as I grow older, I am missing more and more the small moments that can only be experienced within the context of Portugal – let it be the familiar ways of dealing with people or the high quality of the food there (to counter the relative blandness of British food).

    The trip was divided into two places – the first part of it happened in my hometown in central Portugal – the sleepy pace of life (and the freezing nights!), were countered by the warmth of our family and friends. The second part of the trip happened in the bustling capital of Lisbon.

    Some things remain the same in each of my visits – the friendly, laid-back way of life of the people has made Portugal one of the most desirable places to live in the past few years – there has been a significant influx of tourists (26.5 million tourists as per the 2022 per liminar results of the Portuguese Statistics Institute), and expats relocating to the country. Add this the sunny weather most of the year, the affordable cost of living (more on that ahead), and overall safety (ranking number six in the Global Peace Index of 2022), and you have a country that can offer a fabulous quality of life.

    In our case, apart from the cold (and later on, damp) weather, these statements hold true. People were mostly kind, and often eager to talk at length – we made quite some new acquaintances among locals and expats during our visit. We felt safe practically all the time, especially when walking at night – quite often we were sitting at benches after a late dinner just to chill. The cost of food, clothing and transport were generally lower than in the UK – however, inflation has been particularly hard, with a basic food basked allegedly going up by 22% in the past year.

    Belem Tower, a fortress built in the 16th century to serve as a point of embark and disembark of Portuguese explorers.

    A few things are changing, some for the good. One phenomenon that we noticed in the past few years, and has now accelerated is immigration. We have noticed a significant presence of people from Brazil (which is not a new phenomenon), but especially from South Asians, namely India, Bangladesh and Nepal.
    Portugal is traditionally a country of emigration – figures are a bit fuzzy, but data suggests being over three million first-generation Portuguese spread all over the world (and over 10 million living in Portugal). The global crisis of 2008 hit the country to the point of requiring IMF assistance, and mass emigration ensued, leading to a net loss of population between 2011 and 2021 of over 2%. This left a nation with one of highest rates of people over 65, and the authorities struggling even more to gather the resources to provide for public services, and to have the adequate workforce in both numbers and skills to ensure the future of the country.
    As the economy improved and the IMF intervention ended successfully (even with painful results for the society), the country was left with significant workforce shortages – a way to counter these was to have an ‘open door policy’ in terms of immigration – since then, we have received not only increasing numbers of people from other Portuguese-speaking countries, but also from the wider world – places like my hometown, that lost over a third of its population over the past 60 years have now some new faces from across the globe, who are bringing in much needed children, ideas (new businesses are cropping up), skills, and their own efforts to contribute to the economy. There is hope, and enthusiasm – more importantly, Portuguese people have been omstly welcoming towards their new citizens, and friendships are being carved once language barriers are broken.

    But this new phenomena has brought some new concerns – the work environment in Portugal is somehow outdated, with strict hierarchy, bureaucracy, low productivity and wages, and more worrying, one of the lowest average education levels of the entire European continent. Exploitation is often rife among Portuguese themselves – but it now takes a whole new level towards migrants – think of language barriers, poor awareness of their working rights, and a somehow inflexible work law that makes hiring and staff management cumbersome.
    Two trends worried me on the immigrants side – the majority of the new arrivals are often unskilled, thus limiting the pool of jobs that can be filled, and making the process of learning Portuguese (or even being able to communicate in English) more difficult. The second one are the future plans of many – they see Portugal the launching pad to more central and prosperous European countries. We heard many stories of people waiting to get their EU citizenship to then move to France, Ireland, Germany, etc. A somehow generous (and at times, naïve) immigration law allows such situations to happen. Worse, they have allowed for situations of labour exploitation, and added to the long-term lack of housing in the bigger cities, situations of under provision of housing, overpricing or even homelessness. This open another set of concerns, for both long-term and new residents.

    Terreiro do Paço, one of the main squares of Lisbon – after an earthquake in 1755 that destroyed the city, the reconstruction of the city was focused in wider streets, with straight lines and buildings that can resist future earthquakes.

    The boom of Portugal as a destination for tourists, digital nomads and migrants has caused a significant increase in the demand for properties. Historical neighbourhoods with dilapidated housing and older tenants have been gradually bought over and renovated to give space to either premium real estate, hotels and Airbnb’s (known as ‘Alojamento Local’ or local lodgings) – on the other hand, the number of long-term rental units has barely changed – but their prices have been increasing substantially. This leads often to odd situations – the price of a two bed-flat in Lisbon is more expensive than in the UK city where I live (and where there has been a housing boom as well) – even if wages in the later are roughly twice as high. The housing crisis has made headlines in Portugal on a practically daily basis, and led the Government to recently legislate limits on issuing new licences for Airbnb’s and to force the rental of several kinds of vacant properties, unsettling many property owners and investors. Many people are blaming the outsiders on this crisis – but I would add that many properties are often left empty (and thus deteriorating), and there is often some greediness from property owners who try to charge extortionate prices in hopes that someone will accept their terms. The Portuguese way of doing business often creates more issues than solve them.

    Some businesses often use dodgy practices in order to maximise their earnings – a ‘tourist trap’ restaurant in Lisbon would charge higher prices than stated in the menu, but employs its Nepalese cook without a contract and pays him below the minimum wage (currently standing at 760 euros a month, paid in 14 months). Most businesses do not declare their whole income to the state in order to avoid taxation – some places will take cash only, and are keen in not issuing invoices. On its turn, the tax system in place does not encourage people to work extra or earn more, as a small increase in income that leads to a new tax bracket often leads to smaller net earnings. The political, business and social landscape often favour personal connections and favours rather than competence – being skilled and efficient is not a guarantee of success or growth – and this was a major factor behind my decision to leave Portugal. The education system needs more focus on technical and adult/continuous training. There is an urgent need for more frequent and reliable public transport , especially outside the bigger cities. The unions of both education, transport and healthcare, who often enjoy better pay and work conditions than the general population, need to stop their frequent actions that affect the whole society and be more flexible in their demands. The whole country needs to become more efficient and productive, from the office desk to the factory floor. Mass tourism has some short-term benefits, its highly seasonal and often has many drawbacks – the backbone of the economy should be based elsewhere.

    Portuguese cuisine is becoming more famous – but the humble ‘café’ is often overlooked – quite cheap (although the one in the photo was not), and given the copious amounts that people drink at any time of the day (and night), an ever popular hit – my spouse became an avid fan of them.

    There were many other things that I could say about Portugal – but being my country of birth, it is harder to have a more impartial view. I wish to visit it often, and I hope that someday we could make it our home again. But the reality of the working and social environment mean that live in that country would likely come with significant career and financial constraints.
    Furthermore, I have grown attached to my adoptive country – it may be a rainy and expensive place to live, and where the food is heavily discounted in terms of flavours – but the industry of its people, the dynamic work environment, and the proximity to the global centre of ideas and innovation makes the United Kingdom an exciting place to live. A globalised world shortened the effective distances, and I am grateful that the current era allows me to be closer to cultures and ideas from across the globe.

    And these are my latest impressions about Portugal – what do you think of them? Do you have any histories of immigration that you would like to share. I would love to read your ideas on this article.

    ,
    , , , , , , , , ,

  • The world – as it was in the mid-1970’s

    From a second hand purchase on Ebay, to an enlightening trip back in time.

    I have a huge fascination for maps – from a young age, I would look into books and geographic atlases, and be amazed by the borders, cities, roads, rivers, mountains and other details contained in the maps. I would imagine how would these places look like. I borrowed time and time again two particular atlases from the local library, as well as geography and history books. Globes have been equally fascinating to me, and for a long time I dreamt on owning one – but it was not possible back then.

    Fast forwarding a few… I mean, many years, and I was looking into making such childhood dream come true – a quick online search put me unconvinced either by the quality of many of the contemporary globes (often made in China, as shown by the way they place their own claims regions such as Taiwan or Arunachal Pradesh), or the higher price of some of the more respectable brands. I turned to Ebay, looking for ‘vintage globe lamps’, and found today’s star of this article.

    It was in a good price, perfect to be used as a lamp, and still in its original (and with a damp smell) box. And now, I own what I believe to be a globe from around 1975.

    Why owning a 50 year old piece that in many ways no longer reflects today’s political geography?
    There are no lack of digital resources to see the world as it is today, such as Google/Apple/Bing maps. For past events, there is a variety of historical maps – but this globe would feature a two-fold mission – the possibility of understanding the 1970’s world in one shot, and the idea of sort of ‘travelling back in time’ – its hard for me to explain what do I mean with this, but from a personal point of view, it is exhilarating. I hope to give you a glimpse of such ‘time travel’ with the next few pictures.

    Let’s start with the obvious for an European point of view – the Cold War divided Germany into two, but kept together countries such as Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and especially the USSR. For the latter, many of the city names have changed since, such as Leningrad (St. Petersburug), Stalino (Donetsk, Ukraine), Gorki (Nizhny Novgorod, Russia), Kuybychev (Samara, Russia).

    West Africa had some discreet changes. With most of its nations becoming independent in the 1960’s, some changes came more gradually. Burkina Faso was then named Alto Volta, and Cote D’Ivoire was translated as Ivory Coast. Nigeria’s capital was still Lagos (it would be moved to Abuja in late 1991). A curious case was Equatorial Guinea (the country south of Cameroon) – the Island of Bioko (where the capital Malabo is located), was then called Macías Nguema Biyogo, named after one of the most brutal dictators in history.

    Still in Africa – today’s Rep Democratic of Congo was then known as Zaire, named by another brutal dictator, Mobutu. Still within Zaire, there is a mention of Katanga, a natural-rich region that was briefly independent between 1960 and 1953. Dar-es-Salam was the capital of Tanzania (it would be moved to Dodoma in 1974), and Zomba the capital of Malawi (moved to Lilongwe in 1975). Angola and Mozambique became independent from Portugal in 1975, and most of the names in these countries still have their colonial names – the most obvious example is Lourenço Marques (today’s Maputo, the capital of Mozambique), or Nova Lisboa in Angola (today known as Huambo), both renamed circa 1975. A curious case was Zimbabwe, which up till 1979 used to be called Rhodesia – however, the Capital Salisbury was renamed to its current form Harare in 1982 – given that this particular piece has several elements of the mid-1970’s. I wonder if the map-makers decided to rename this country before the official renaming.

    Now to the Arabian Peninsula and the Horn of Africa. Eritrea was then part of Ethiopia (it would become independent in 1993). Yemen was divided into the tribal North Yemen and the socialist Yemen P.D.R. (or South Yemen). I was puzzled to see an undefined area between both countries (who would eventually unite in 1990), called Madinat Al Sha’b – was this a disputed territory? Further north, we have a blunder! Mecca was never the capital of Saudi Arabia, with Riyadh being the capital since the country’s independence in 1932. Finally, Sudan’s partition happened in 2011, and before then, it was the largest country in Africa.

    Moving to South Asia – Rawalpindi was the interim capital of Pakistan from 1959 to 1967 (Karachi being the previous capital), and later moving to Islamabad – is seems that the map-maker missed this change. India is still showing many of its anglicised named, such as Bombay (now Mumbai), Calcutta (Kolkata), Madras (Chennai). North of India, Buthan’s capital is showing was Punakha – it changed to Thimphu in 1961. One more detail missed by the map-maker. Finally, Myanmar has gone through many changes – it was then known as Burma, with the capital being Rangoon (a city that was renamed Yangon in 1989). In 2005, the capital moved to a more central location in Nay Pyi Taw.

    Moving east, to East Asia! Both Korea’s are barely distinguishable, even though they have been split since 1945. China’s capital was then known as Peking (the western media would gradually adopt this name from 1986 onwards). Hong-Kong and Macau were then under colonial administration, and would be transferred to China in 1997 and 1999 respectively. Taiwan was still known as Formosa (such name fell slowly out of use). In the Philippines, Quezon City was the capital of the country between 1948 and 1976, when it then moved to the Philippines. Further south (unfortunately out of the picture’s view) East Timor was then part of Portugal – it would be invaded and occupied by Indonesia in 1975, and regained independence in 2002.

    Unfortunately I know very little of Oceania – but most of the nations under British and French administration have become independent from the 1970’s onwards. The Gilbert Isles are now known as Kiribati. One change is to happen soon – East of Papua New Guinea (PNG) lies the region of Bougainville – after voting for independence from PNG in 2019, the region is set to become the world’s newest nation by 2027.

    North America – apparently not much going on in this continent – but just as mentalities change, so do names. Greenland, as a self-ruling part of Denmark, has seen their towns called by their Inuit rather than Danish names – Godthaab is nowadays knows as Nuuk, Helsteinsborg is now Sisimiut. The renaming of towns to Inuit is taking place in Canada as well – Repulse Bay is now Naujaat, and Port Harrison is Inukjuak.

    At last, South America – Surinam(e) was still part of the Netherlands (it would gain independence in 1975). Dominica would follow in 1978, Antigua and Barbuda in 1981 (they became independent together, thus the map has a mistake here. Many of the smaller islands in the region are still under British , French or Dutch administration.

    And here is it, a tour around the world – I mean this globe. Please forgive me if I missed any important details here, would you let me know? I would love to know your notes and comments on this topic.

    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • International Students and Higher Education – an expensive dream – or illusion?

    Photo from the University of Coimbra, the oldest university in Portugal (by Carlos Machado, available in pexels.com)

    This post is about events that initially seemed as something far away, till it eventually happened to people we got to know personally.

    I recently watched a documentary from Canada’s broadcaster CBC, on how Canadian Universities are reaping significant profits from bringing an ever growing number of foreign students, charging them much higher fees than the ones paid by local residents, but often offering little return in the way of quality of teaching and facilities. It was highlighted the case of Alpha College in Ontario, with 100% of their students coming from overseas, and even enrolling over 4900 students when the physical capacity of their buildings could lodge solely 420 students.

    These students often come from developing countries, especially from South Asia. For many of them, studying abroad is the best route for immigration, and the possibility of finding better job and living opportunities. It is not uncommon for their families to sell assets or get themselves into debt in order to reach this goal. Prospective students often put themselves at the mercy of agents who connect them to Universities across the world, often bringing unrealistic expectations of finding well paid jobs quickly and easy access to a permanent residency in that country. Some may even resort to fraud in order to secure the required language tests or student credentials.

    In short, there is a whole industry based on devious premises – Universities, now focusing on profits instead of education, benefit from premium student fees. In the countries of origins language/preparation schools immigration and school agents cash in handsome revenues, regardless of standards. The students, dreaming for a better life… likely get the short end of the deal. Not just in Canada, but in other English speaking countries.

    Let’s now travel to the United Kingdom. The city where I live lodges a few higher education institutes. During the past few years, there has been a significant (and welcome) increase in foreign students – personally, it was a boon, partly because of the refreshing look that gave to the city environment, and because I married one of them! Both universities have invested heavily in modern facilities and significant efforts in promoting themselves abroad. But its not clear whether the right steps are taken to benefit their students.

    Issues first came to our notice during one of the Covid lockdowns in late 2020 – with schools and faculties closed and classes happening online, one of the Universities decided to charter a plane to bring in students from China. Life here was at a standstill, whereas China’s had pretty much returned to normality. Why subjecting the students to more fragile and risky conditions?


    Since September, and at the start of each academic semester, we noticed an increasing number of international students (and professionals) were approaching our circle of acquaintances in severe anxiety and looking for a room or a house to rent . A friend of ours who owns several properties noticed a steady increase in enquiries for letting ever since.

    More alarmingly, we found that some of these students were apparently not well prepared for their arrival in the country, and needed guidance for things such as getting a National Insurance Number (in order to take jobs), or opening a bank account. Some even lacked a proper level of English. One student travelled all the way to India to attend a course which would take place solely one day per week, for a subject that could have easily been taught online. A brief look at the names and contents of these courses left some doubts on whether these would be worth the significant costs and efforts to for relocation.


    For the past few weeks – with a new semester coming up, we met over a dozen people who were in very distressing situations – with difficulties to secure housing, at times very little money, and apparently no awareness on what they should do once they arrived here.

    So far, we have only heard the students side of the story, and the Universities themselves likely have some compelling arguments. But, how can an academic institution bring in a high number of new students, charging them huge fees, and not make steadier preparations to secure lodgings for everyone at their arrival (either from private renters or their own student accommodation)? At a time where the renting market is tight (fewer property in the market, and more expensive), it would be wise (and helpful for the prestige of the university) to ask themselves “Does our region have enough provisions to house and employ all of people we are bringing in?” What is the logic of creating courses that demand little in-class attendance? Is one day of classes per week their notion of “enjoying the full academic experience?”
    In the name of higher profits, we are creating an humanitarian issue – at the risk of homelessness, exposure to exploitation from prospective landlords and employers, overcrowding, squalor, poverty, health problems.

    However, this is a situation where some of the students can be blamed for part of the responsability. Many come to improve their academic records and enjoy the living experience in a new country and city.
    But as mentioned before, many (possibly most) students coming from developing economies see their courses as the ticket for a better life in the United Kingdom.

    The country has some of the most restrictive immigration laws in the world. Nowadays, the routes for immigration are mostly reduced to either as skilled workers, family reunion, or as a students. The first is hugely expensive and restrictive, the second is morose, expensive and likely to cause frustration. The student route seems to be the easiest, even if expensive.

    In their home countries, prospective students are given by unscrupulous agents wide assurances that their settling in the UK will be smooth. They do not mind picking lesser known universities or curriculums. Once here, they have up to two years after graduation (three for a PhD), to find a job in their area. However, what they are not told is that the cost of living in the UK is very expensive compared to most of the world. Student visas limit paid to 20 hours per week, nowadays hardly enough to cope with current expenses (and many students aim to send money back home). Once graduated, the only companies that can sponsor them have to be registered as such – each application has a significant cost to the employer, and in practice only high paying jobs with severe skills shortages can provide sponsorships. Once employed, the graduate is tied to that company – changing jobs means starting the sponsorship process all over again, always meaning an extra cost to the company when compared to local candidates. And finally, the British Home Office, who is in charge of implementing immigration policies, has tried for years (with little success), to limit the number of entries or even permanent residencies in the country – and there have been known instances of them going to significant lengths to prevent applicants (and at times even long term residents – search online for the Windrush Scandal) from staying in the country.

    However, there are signs that things can change – but not necessarily for the better. In the year to June 2022, there was a net migration of over 500,000 people – a record number of entries. Part of this number was due to a significant increase in student visas – with students often being able to bring their dependants with them.

    (For more info on the numbers of students arriving in the UK, a statistical bulletin from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), released 24 November 2022, is available here).

    In order to limit the number of arrivals, the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary (interestingly enough, both from immigrant backgrounds) mentioned the intention to limit the ability of bringing in dependants (who can potentially take full time jobs, and allowing the sustainable of the household), by cracking down on “substandard courses in inadequate institutions.”

    This has caused alarm among universities, especially smaller institutes, claiming that these measures “send many universities over the edge,” especially in poorer regions. Many institutions have often flaunted their direct impact on the local and regional economies, not only in terms of fees, but the impact of student spending and even the job market. They flaunt that international students bringing over £25.9bn to the economy, and claim that further restrictions will harm local economies as much as the academic institutions. There have been claims that foreign fees allow academical institutions to balancetheir finance, which would not be possible to achieve relaying solely on the contributions from British students alone.

    I would take this as partly fear-mongering, partly financial greed. The UK has among the highest university costs in the world (the local fees for undergraduates can cost as much as £9,250 a year). Looking at my city, there have some significant upgrades to facilities, building student dorms, enabling student clubs. Undoubtedly nice-to-haves, but are these necessary? How does a brand-new student union building improve the quality of teaching?
    Universities across Europe charge nominal fees for their domestic or European students, and even their international prices are often much cheaper than the UK’s domestic ones! Here is a quick of the costs throughout Europe. Their academic rankings may not match the ones of an Oxford or Cambridge, but judging that the strength of some of their economies match or even outperform the UK, the quality of their institutions seems to be adequate.

    It’s time for British Universities to rethink their model – less based on profit and outside appearances, and more on high quality courses, teaching and students. Upper education with affordable costs, based on merit, was once possible, and can still be brought back. The critical lack of skills in areas such as healthcare and engineering is currently partly plugged by foreign workers – and they overcome so many hurdles to stay in the country legally. The current system has created a lot of student debt, often for courses with little financial return. Universities should also veto the prospective international students in the same way that is done with locals – ensuring that they have the skills and potential required to succeed in their studies.

    For the Government, it is time to reform the Home Office hostile environment policy in place since 2012, and implement a more pragmatic, effective and honest approach on immigration. The idea of giving foreign students two to three year after graduation to find a qualified job, but then making the job hunting process of job hunting extremely hard by en expensive and restrictive sponsorship system is misleading, to say the least. A reform on the immigration system would require voters to be educated on the actual impact of immigration in the country, instead of populist groups that have taken the country to a more isolationist approach (such as Brexit), and thus reducing the country’s importance and stance in the world.

    For international students, the best scenario would be for the economies of their own countries to be strong enough that immigration could be a choice, not the only option out of poverty.
    As this is not the case, then prospective students should make a thorough investigation of what are the actual living conditions and prospects they will find in their new homes. Foreign institutions can give them informative sessions of what to expect, what steps to take in order to settle in, and the actual chances of succeeding in their new countries after graduation. Moving to a new country has significant costs and risks, there must be honestly in acknowledging that the investment made may be recouped – for people whose families go into huge amounts of debt, this can have a devastating impact in their future. Beware of illusions and false promises – success stories are often exaggerated for different reasons, and failures are rarely confessed.

    Coming from my personal immigration journey, my advice for those who come is – Prepare your journey carefully. Once you arrive, observe and learn from your new surroundings – adapt and adopt, seek to belong! Whatever the outcome, the most important will be the experiences and know-how acquired – that will allow most people to eventually succeed either here or elsewhere.

    At a time when there is a shortage of qualified workers and skills, education should not be a financial burden, but a beacon of hope. The current system seems to be heading to a for-profit model, rather than paving the way for a stronger and more prosperous economy economy, a more educated and cohesive society, and better equipped individuals. In time, this may affect the ability of individuals to make more meaningful and daring contributions to society.

    Do you have any experiences or stories of international students you’d like to share? I would love to hear your opinions and ideas on this topic.

    , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Democracy and Censorship in India – a contradiction?

    One more picture from my 1970’s globe.

    The BBC recently released a controversial two part series ‘India: the Modi Question.’ The first episode was centered on the 2002 Riots in the Indian state of Gujarat – where the burning of a train with Hindu pilgrims let to further unrest against the Muslim community in the state capital of Ahmedabad, leading to over 1,000 deaths, most of these Muslims. The documentary’s main claims were that the Police did little to stop the rioters, and were prevented by the state government from doing so. The Gujarati government was then led by Narendra Modi, the leader of the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party), a Hindu Nationalist Party who has advocated the hegemony of Hindus in India, and has been accused of hostility towards the ‘non-Indian’ religious communities, namely Muslims.


    The second episode had as the centre stage the events post 2014, following BJP’s victory in the General elections, with Modi as Prime Minister. In the following years, a series of events such as the revocation of Article 370 in Kashmir (which gave the only Muslim majority state in India a special administrative status), changes in the nationality law (aimed at cracking down illegal immigration, but ended up depriving several thousand people of their citizenship, most of the Muslims). This often led to communal riots or acts of police brutality towards a minority which makes about 14% of India’s population, representing over 172 million people.

    The allegations in the series were not new – communal violence has a long term standing in India (such as the 1947 violence following the partition of the subcontinent into India and Pakistan, or the 1984 riots following the assassination of Indira Gandhi), but since 2014 there have seen an increased and well-documented rhetoric against non-Hindu minorities in India.

    The reactions to the documentary came from all directions – many British-Indians accused the BBC of being biased and trying to divide communities. The channel defended the controversial series as being ‘rigorously researched.’ The UK’s Prime Minister Rishi Sunak was quick to defend its Indian counterpart.

    In India, a Government speaker labelled the documentary as a “propaganda piece,” and accused the BBC of having a “colonial mindset.” Evoking emergency laws, they blocked the broadcast of the documentary in India, and requested YouTube and Twitter to remove any clips of it. Backlash came mainly from opposition parties, and from University students who are facing pressure from the University administrations to not screen in documentary on campus, and it has led to electric and internet blackouts, and even police arrests.

    I scoured some reactions to the latest events – one described the series as “Hinduphobic” or “Indophobic” – accusations that have been previously coined to the BBC. On the other hand, some people expressed dismay for the ban, and the undemocratic tones of it.

    Having watching the documentary, and having a grasp of the recent history of that country, the events and claims were not new. These were indeed damning for Modi and the BJP government. Unfortunately, the background, propaganda, statements, and the outcome of some actions of BJP’s leaders, affiliates and sympathisers have given extensive evidence that there is indeed animosity towards religious minorities, namely Muslims. However, I could not see in what way these claims were somehow depreciative or insulting to India or Hinduism – these were rather a symptom of serious issues that India needs to address urgently, otherwise these may taint the image of the country.

    For a nation known for its huge cultural and religious diversity, India now ranks in the ‘red’ category (existence of persecution), in the 2021 Religious Freedom in the World Report. To add to the concern, the world’s most populous democracy has now regressed to ‘Partly Free’ (with Indian Kashmir ranking as ‘Not Free’), by the 2022 Freedom in the World Index. A more detailed view of this report shows issues in the independence of media, expression of religious beliefs, academic freedom, freedom of assembly, and rule of law, and individual rights.
    Such findings are slowly creeping into the daily lives of many Indians, with the media becoming warier of criticising the BJP of HIndu-Nationalist groups, and with more reports of harassment on minority groups, whereas political, social or religious. There have also been several instances of openly hate speech content being voiced either by some political figures, or even through the lyrics of songs.

    On one hand, BJP’s rule can be credited with some positive feats. Modi replicated the success of the Gujarat’s experience of liberalisation and privatisation of the economy- India’s economy has grown steadily and its now the world’s fifth largest. Modi’s government has enjoyed approval rates of around 60-80%, with its supported crediting him with the ‘Rise of India’s’ prestige in the world. Poverty has been reduced from 22.5% in 2012 to 10.2% in 2019. The prevalence of many people of Indian citizenship or descent at the top of many global companies and even governments makes proof of the huge talent and human potential of that country

    However, this success is marred by some significant drawbacks. Events such as a disruptive demonetisation programme in 2016, to the mismanagement and collapse of the healthcare system during the second wave of the Covid pandemic in 2021, and the gradual capture of the media (once, when enquired about the 2002 events in Gujarat, Modi stated that his one regret was on ‘how we handled the media’), have often been overlooked.

    A more concerning trend among the current government is the silencing or casting aside some uncomfortable questions. Successive delays in running India’s censuses, has been seen as a way to not call attention to some inflated progresses claimed by Modi – such as the percentage of villages with electricity or the claim that India is now “defecation free” – the censuses could show that Modi’s claimed achievements have been somehow exaggerated, and therefore must be postponed to a less sensitive time. That’s where the BBC’s documentary ban could fit in.

    My first thoughts on the ban was that it was useless – it would cast most curiosity about it, and lead people to seek answers to the questions “If the allegations are not true, why is the government so worried about it?” However, the number of potential viewers is rather limited- even if English is an official language, only about 10-20% of India’s population has some command of the language. These are mostly a younger, educated population, likely belonging to India’s economic and social elite. They constitutes a small proportion of the Indian’s electorate, and likely not the main voting base of the BJP. The biggest risk could come from the open distribution of the documentary and its translation in the (many) languages of India. This would reach to a more faithful and hardcore base, who has been limited mostly to state-sponsored media. Their exposure to the documentary could cast questions over the role of the BJP in India, and disrupt a likely easy and painless path to victory for the General Elections of 2024.

    Map of India’s 2019 General Elections by Districts
    (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Indian_general_election)

    The current government is increasing its control of the state institutions and the country – to do that, people have to be convinced of a particular narrative of India’s society, culture and history. The renaming of some historical monuments, the revamping of historical events, the idea of ‘a common, pervasive enemy’, are elements of a what can become an repressive government.


    As long as the economy keeps growing at a steady rate, and the younger generation is fuelled with the idea of a rising power, this take over will continue largely unencumbered. India’s prestige abroad is crucial to this process as well as the role of its diaspora and corporations to show that India means business, and its a force to be reckoned with. Other nations have done the same in the past, such as Turkey and Russia.
    However, judging by the recent events in both these countries, their leaders eventually lose their grip over events. Economic and social conditions, once they start deteriorating, will prompt protests and calls for change – but by then, the state institutions have already been taken over by their rulers, and their populations have no longer the possibility to demand reforms. Confidence is lost, and there are no more independent institutions that can provide alternatives to the decline of the country – at least in harmonious way.

    I believe India has started walking towards that path. The declining transparency and room for differing opinions will in time affect its development. By fostering discriminatory policies towards 20% of its population is not only encouraging the rise of upheaval and extremism, but also neglecting the need to have all its citizens engaged in the growth and progress of the country. In a region made of socially and economically fragile countries (Pakistan, Myanmar, and more recently, Sri Lanka), India is a haven of stability -in part because of the efforts to made to accommodate the diversity of its citizens.

    It is often compelling to compare India and China – whereas it is widely reckoned that the latter has reached more impressive economic success, India takes the edge in one way- it does not hide its weaknesses, even when these are painfully acute. Its challenges and potential are discernible, and such honesty attracts (and frustrates) investors, ideas and capital to the country. By curbing such openness, the country risks having such investments scaled back at home, and jeopardises the efforts and prestige of Indian companies and citizens abroad.

    Such analysis for India should not be seen as ‘Hindu’ or ‘Indo’ phobias. Modi and his government represent the country, but they are not the same as India itself. The criticism is generally well meant, and comes from the wishes that India becomes an ever more meaningful and positive partner in the world scene (at times, as a way to counter a more lone approach from countries like China), where all its citizens can make their best contributions to the country and the world. Fighting religious, cast and social bigotry mean no attack on Hinduism, but an opportunity to improve the society, and to enhance the culture of India as a whole.

    For many of us, India represents diversity, hard work, vibrancy. As a fan of older Bollywood movies, I was amazed to see that the name of these would often be displayed in Hindi and Urdu languages, and that these films often featured and celebrated the brotherly relations between Hindus and Muslims. One film in particular (Amar, Akbar, Anthony), tells the story of three brothers who grew up in different faiths (Hindu/Muslim/Christian), but that the love between them was beyond faiths. This is the India that fascinates the world- and the India most likely to succeed on the long term. Just look at the success stories of countries such as Canada, Australia or the UK – these are based on the contributions from people all over the world – with some hailing from… India!

    What are your opinions on the the article above? Did you watch the BBC documentary? I would love to read your comments and ideas.

    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Chess – the beautiful game

    I got this chess set for Christmas in 2021 – one of my favourite gifts in years. It looks, feels… and smells amazing!

    My first contact with chess came when I was turning 12, through a book that I borrowed from the library during an uneventful summer.
    I was instantly captivated by the logic and mental demands of chess, and this became of the most memorable reads of teenage years (I keep a copy of that same book to this day). Sometime after, my mother gifted me my first chess set – a basic cardboard one with plastic pieces, but whose smell and feel carved sweet memories that stayed to this day.

    The resume of the school year allowed me the possibility of joining the school’s chess club, and to improve my game. I never became a top player, but the fun of Wednesday afternoons away from classes (sometimes visiting other schools to attend tournaments) the making of friendships, and the focused, almost tense environment of the matches were among the fondest moments I carry from my early teenage years.

    Unfortunately, I did not keep up with this activity as I grew into adulthood. Apart from a couple of local tournaments, I spent the following years drifting in an out of this sport – but the passion to play was always there.

    This month, after years of occasional online chess and the (even less occasional) human player, I visited a chess club in my area, for the first time in close to 20 years. I was greeted by the local members, got to know a bit more about the club, and played (and lost) two matches. The feeling was exhilarating – sitting among people I had never met before, in a strange place, and yet, I was in my environment, deeply connected to my thoughts on the match, the pieces, my opponents, the chess clock. I left the event energised, happy, confident . Hope to return to that club regularly, for the thrill, environment and to step up my game as well.

    Needless to say that playing chess is something that I’d recommend to everyone. I would (exaggerate a bit), and compare the art of playing chess almost as important as the need to know the notions of computer coding, or mastering a foreign language. It comes as a little surprise that chess is attributed with benefits such as improving cognitive abilities, better reasoning and decision making, or delaying the process of mental deterioration due to ageing. For me, it works as an effective way of meditating, as all the attention is diverted to that one task in hand – or better saying, that task in mind!

    Due to its demanding mental (and at times physical) nature and competitive nature, chess gets recognition as a competitive sport. FIDE is the international organismthat regulates and promotes chess at a wordwide level, and organise the most reputable competitions, the pinnacle of them being the World Chess Championship taking place yearly. Here, the reining world championship will dispute a series of matches with the winner of the Candidates Tournment.
    The financial benefits and worldwide recognition coming from top-level chess are rather modest (the prize of the World Championship stands as a little over half a million dollars), with few players being able to make a living on tournaments alone (many make an income from tutoring chess, either to classes or via the use of digital channels such as youtube), and the visibility of high ranked matches being somehow limited.

    However, this does not mean that this sport is not taken seriously by some nations and their governments. In fact, chess has often been an important tool for nations to compete for influence and recognition in the world stage – particularly during the Cold War.


    From the end of World War II up till the turn of the century, nearly all World Chess champions hailed from the Soviet Union (with a brief exception of Bobby Fisher from the USA – a list of all Words Chess Champions can be found here).
    This part of a deliberate effort from the Soviet authorities to promote the superiority of the Socialist Ideology at the world stage. Starting a method of military training and then as a tool to increase the cultural awareness of its population, chess in that country evolved into a widespread training programme across all levels of society. Chess schools had a strong emphasis on rigorous training and study of the game, with soviet players often practicing as part of a team, rather than lone individuals (as it often happen elsewhere). This led to the absolute dominance of Soviet players during a good part of the 20th century (and still evident in 21st century) with players such as Botvinnik, Karpov and Kasparov achieving worldwide fame, and reaping significant privileges and benefits within their own countries. The Soviet Union used this as a propaganda tool to assert the intellectual superiority of their culture and people – even as the economical and technological gap against the West became ever more visible.

    A stamp from the Soviet Union commemorating the World Chess Championship of 1985. The Philately on chess is rich, and almost as fascinating as the game itself (Public Domain Photograph)

    The collapse of the Soviet Union disrupted the chess structures of that region. Even the own chess structure was impacted, with two concurring organisations and world championships taking place during the 1990’s, allowing the emergence of chess prodigies from other parts of the world. However, the cultural impact of the game in the former Soviet block is still evident, with a significant number of the current top 20 ranked players hailing from Russia (Nepomniachtchi, Azerbaijan (Radjabov), Armenia (Aronian), or Uzbekistan (Abdussatorov).

    (For further reading on the relationship between Chess and the Soviet society, there is a an interesting dissertation from Michael A. Hudson (University of California, Santa Cruz) from 2013, which can be found here.)

    However, recent years have seen a renewed meddling between chess and politics. There have been allegations of Russian influence to ensure that politically amenable Russians reach FIDE’s leadership, such as Putin’s request in 2018 to the Israeli’s PM Netanyahu to ask the Israeli Chess Federation to back Arkady Dvorkovich (who replaced Kirsan Ilyumzhinov after 23 years at the help of FIDE, sometimes supported by Russia’s diplomatic efforts). In a curious twist, the Kremlin asked FIDE in March 2022 to ‘stay out of politics’ after the organism decided to ban Sergey Karjakin for 6 months following his public support for the invasion of Ukraine. This was indeed a tough year for Russian (and Belarussian) chess, after having their players banned from representing their nations, with some choosing to compete under a neutral participation or even changing federations (such as Grandmaster Evgeny Romanov, now representing Norway’s chess).

    Talking of Norway, this is the country that hosts the biggest chess player of the day – Magnus Carlsen, who has held the title since 2013 (who decided not to defend the title for 2023). A mix of an eccentric personality, deep understanding of the game, and often unconventional moves, he is often regarded the greatest chess players of all time, or at least, a worthy successor of the legacies of Fisher, Karpov or Kasparov.

    But back to the challenges of Chess – political meddling are not the only issues faced by the sport. Technology brought huge opportunities for the study of the game, but also the biggest threat to its existence and fair-play.
    Computer chess initially met with significant challenges to cover the complexity and the sheer number of possible combinations in the game. However, programmes from the 1970’s were strong enough to defeat high skilled human players. The turning point happened in 1996, with the computer Deep Blue being able to defend the World Champion Garry Kasparov. In the early 2000’s, chess software available for home computers were able opponents against GrandMasters. Today’s smartphones have chess software strong enough to defeat any human player regardless of skill.
    This revolutionised the way players study the game. No longer limited to study chess books and previous matches the current generation of chess players has improving themselves through the use of AI chess, allowing them to tailor their game and learning through ways unimaginable before.

    But AI also led to the rise of cheating, mostly in online chess, but at times even during human events, affecting the prestige and integrity of the game. A few high profile matches were marked episodes of players caught using smartphones in toilets, to the use of Bluetooth devices during matches to receive instructions.

    Final position of the ‘Game of the Century,’ played in 1956 between the 13 year old Bobby Fischer (who won the match) and Donald Byrne)

    But we’d be mistaken to think that the game is on decline (it was my opinion till recently). Software such as chess.com or Lichess have expanded the scope and accessibility of the game as never before, and led to the creation of a whole range of virtual tournaments and new competition categories (such as rapid and blitz games). Some players became famous online, and could create YouTube chess channels reaching to a wider audience, such as GothamChess, Agadmators or GM Hikaru.

    Finally, I cannot talk about the resurgence of chess without mentioning the Netflix series ‘The Queen’s Gambit’. Its release led to an extensive increase in the number of online chess players, and with a considerable increase of sales in chess sets and other materials. The pandemic fuelled such growth, with people seeking indoor activities, or rekindling their former passion to the game.

    Trends may come and go – the appeal of this game has endured from its first references in the 7th century (as Chaturanga, which still exists in India) to this day. The idea that the game is limited to ‘brainy intellectuals’ is challenged by the variety of people in terms of backgrounds and skills who come to play it, either in person or virtually. Online chess has nowadays tools that allow players to start playing within their level of experience and the gradually move them up according to their progress, with increasingly reliable anti-cheat tools. Its a great starting point that will encourage potential players to step up to their game, and eventually reaching out to other people for in person matches (where I firmly believe the actual thrill is).

    In the end of the day, it’s about the friendly competition between two people, the battle on the board and on their minds – but most of all, about the shared journey for improvement. Chess builds trust on oneself and on others – in a sometimes chaotic world, its comforting to abide by a universal set of rules within that 64 squared board. For me, this is the beautiful game.

    Do you play chess? What are your views on the issues discussed in this article? I would love to have your opinions on this, or maybe even the possibility to play a match!

    , , , , , , , ,

  • On colonial reparations, history and development

    Two articles got my attention this week – a radio talk show and podcast (“Contra-Corrente” meaning “Against the tide”) from the Portuguese broadcaster “Radio Observador”, mentioned as a side subject the increasing efforts from some African and Caribbean countries to seek reparations from their former colonial powers for the abuses and exploitation they suffered in the past. A specific example came from the government of Barbados (a former British colony in the Caribbean), who is seeking reparations from the descendants of slave and land owners who currently own lands or assets in the Island. Some of these descendants include some famous people such as the British actor Benedict Cumberbatch. These reparations could come in the way of obtaining or even expropriating some of the lands still owned by these Europeans.

    After a brief online search, I stumbled another article from the New York Times (The Long Road Ahead for Colonial Reparations), citing numerous examples of countries (such Haiti, Namibia, Jamaica, Congo) with various claims ranging from apologies, compensations in money, or the return of artefacts taken by their former colonial powers. The common argument is that colonial powers enriched themselves with the slave labour and the extraction of the resources from these countries and their people, halting their development, and bringing negative impacts that can be felt even decades (or in the case of Haiti, centuries) after their independence.

    In addition to their colonial past, some of the common features of these nations include a legacy of slavery, and their current constraints in terms of economic and social development.

    There is no denying of the horrors and excesses of colonialism. From the extreme violence over local populations, plundering of natural resources, the transatlantic slave trade followed by generations of people exploited either as slaves or cheap labour, the repression and consequent replacement of their cultures, to the destruction (intentional or not) of entire civilisations.

    The road for independence of these nations was not an easy one. From the ill-preparedness of their populations to rule their own affairs, to the resistance of their former colonial wars (often in ending up in colonial/liberations wars in places such as Haiti, Algeria or Angola), or the own independence process leading to internal splits and further violence (India/Pakistan, Congo), or the economic stagnation followed by poor governance and predatory practices from multinational companies (too many examples to mention here).

    The former colonial powers, on the other end, got a pretty good deal, then and now – an ample supply of cheap resources (human and material) to allow the develop their metropoles, promotion of their culture and language throughout the world, and a possibility to allow the emigration their own excess population and workforce without completely losing out on their potential economic benefits. Even after relinquishing their colonies, there is still room to reap some benefits, without the ‘burden’ of looking after their former subjects – from getting special conditions for their businesses to operate in these new nations and to expand their markets (or to continue to have cheap access to these countries’ resources), to hosting immigrants who in addition to compensate for the lack of labour in developed markets, end up enriching the economical, social and cultural landscape of their new nations.

    The legacy of colonialism interests me on a personal level. My family has ties to the former Portuguese Africa, and we have a mix of European and African ancestry in us – going further back, it’s very likely that our ancestors were on both the coloniser and the colonised sides.

    I grew up listening to the fascinating stories (and perhaps a few myths as well) of my family members youth in colonial Angola, from the small life events in the multiracial capital Luanda, to the adventures of my Grandfather in the hinterland. But the events surrounding their departure from Angola in 1975, on the eve of its independence and with fighting not far from where they lived are a bit of mystery. I could only gather that their integration in the comparatively grey and conservative Portugal of the mid-70’s was met with a lot struggles. Their sense of nostalgia and of many former ‘Retornados’ (the people who moved from Africa to Portugal during the 1970’s), is countered only by the bleak reality of the stagnation or even colapso of their former homes.

    While growing up, the version of Portugal’s history learned in school glorified the events surrounding the Portuguese explorations around the globe as the country’s apogee, by ‘bringing new worlds to the world’, and the harmony between different races (exemplified by the racial mixing which was encouraged by the authorities). References to slavery were down to half a page in the history book. The decolonisation of the mid-1970’s, was mentioned as an outcome of the Carnation Revolution of 1974, which brought an end of almost half a century of a dictatorial regime and the end of almost 15 years of colonial rule.

    For Europeans, the idea of a ‘glorious, paternalistic colonialism’ has becoming slowly replaced by the acknowledgement of its excesses. Nevertheless, some benefits to the colonies are recognised (and often shared by the formerly colonised), such as the building of critical infrastructure (such as railways in India), modern medical standards, and the spread of languages of global use, facilitating links with other people.

    In school and even in media, History is more of a way to build a sense of national identity and pride, than it is to bring a critical view over historical events. A more elucidative view of the events surrounding the history of the country of my birth came from foreign sources or more recent Portuguese authors. Additional and fascinating points of view were learned from the contact with people born in different parts of the world, often from former colonies. Their views on the same events were often seen under a different light (imagine comparing my views on the the ‘Invasion of Goa’ against an Indian’s ideas on the ‘Liberation of Goa’), but there were many stories where both sides could somehow relate – often in the same native language, under relatable cuisine experiences, and with many common cultural references, despite the geographical distance of our nations.

    Times moved on, and most people today are happy that most former colonies are ruling their own affairs – however, some views are still quite common, and shape the way people see historical events. Europeans often think of the colonial experience as a ‘paternalistic, civilisational mission that brought modern values and infrastructure to otherwise backward nations’. Formerly colonised countries view this period as one of struggle and trauma against imperialistic powers, the stunted their own progress in many ways, and that, up to this day, it is still present.

    And is that against such arguments where the claims of reparations arise. Several former colonies are demanding from colonial powers the acknowledgment of the excesses and abuses made. Such acknowledgement comes in the way of specific actions. Countries such as Nigeria, Namibia and Benin demand the return of cultural artefacts forcibly taken from their countries centuries ago, and that are often on display at the museums of prestigious European museums.

    Some countries demand that action is taken in the form of reparation money. In addition to the Barbados’ claim, Jamaica is pushing for compensation of up to 10 billion dollars from the UK to address two centuries of free labour (slavery) from the island. In 2022, Namibia secured an agreement with Germany to receive 1.1 billion euros to redress the genocide of the Herero and Nama people. Other countries like Haiti, Burundi have gone through similar claims, hoping to get some financial support as a way to redress the inequalities brought by their colonial legacy.

    There is evidence that such claims can be fruitful. The British Museum recently agreed to return some artefacts to the Nigerian government, and recent agreement Between Germany and Namibia is opening a pandora box for more claims to follow. The European public opinion, which in recent years has become more self-critical about their own history, is more receptive to discuss such themes, in part because a growing number share cultural traits with both their European homes and former colonies.

    I see these claims with some caution, in part because they can have an unlimited liability, and in part because I am sceptical these will address current and future problems.

    I believe that our history (or histories), can be discussed and taught under a self-critical, open-minded manner, without that diminishing the value that we add to our identity. Portuguese accepting their central role in the slave trade does not diminish the courage of theie earlier explorers in facing unknown worlds, at a time where superstition and ignorance were rife. The depredations of the British in India do not have to destroy the country’s achievements in terms of building one of the greatest empires the world has even seen. Some current trends of viewing the European history and people under an extremely negative light do not make justice huge achievements that were brought worldwide such as the wide contributions in the fields of modern science, medicine, and technology.

    The bad deeds of former colonial powers shall be recognised, not in spite of the past, but to open the way for the future. To say ‘We did wrong in the past, and we apologise for this’, opens the way to accept that such behaviours and actions are unacceptable today, and shall not be repeated ever again, in any capacity. In a world where modern slavery is still reality, and where ethnic, religious, economic and social discrimination still exist, such message has been put to action promptly enough.

    However, I am sceptical of the benefits of further actions to address the legacy of colonialism.

    One important point is that the excesses committed during colonial times are seen as such under contemporary eyes – but back in the day, when these took place, such actions were not seen as wrong, but as part of the times. And in the case of slavery, the Europeans often would have the collaboration of local African leaders in order to bring in more victims. Slavery has been practiced for millennia by most civilisations on earth, are the demands for compensation extended to all perpetrators? Is there a limit in time and place from where these claims could arise?

    Other point could be – the claims for compensation would have a strong point if the perpetrators or direct victims of these actions were still alive. But since these happened many decades of even centuries ago, is it fair to demand that the descendants of the former colonial powers have to pay up for the actions of their ancestors? For something that the vast majority clearly disavows today, and that they could do nothing to prevent or change?

    It seems that, in many cases, the economic rational is the most compelling one – the possibility of getting complementary funding from nations with seemingly large purses, and moral dilemmas.

    Many of the social and economical issues observed in these nations today can find their roots back to colonial times – but the severity of these same seems to vary a lot. Decades after their independence, some nations have developed in a positive way (such as Botswana, Cape Verde, Singapore), where’s other often find themselves worse off than they were during colonial times. Countries like Zimbabwe, who during their first years after independence was called the ‘bread basket of Africa’, later descended into an economic breakdown, caused by poor political choices and discrimination towards white farmers. It seems that, in many cases, corruption, nepotism, mismanagement of resources and disregard for crucial sectors such as healthcare and education made more damage to these countries than colonialism itself. The case of today’s remaining colonies no longer actively seeking independence (partly due to improved treatment from their metropoles, and partly due to the perceived negative experiences lived by their independent neighbours), shows a certain dilemma between choosing self-ruling or enjoying some degree of stability.

    If such claims were to be met, what would be the chances of the funds actually being used to improve the lives of their inhabitants, and not to perpetuate the same old issues that plague these nations? Once the money was over, would they come back to their donor nations and demand further compensations, thus continuing the vicious circle?

    Good governance and anti-corruption practices could eventually facilitate the chances of such claims and additional aid to be met – but interestingly enough, good governance seems to diminish the need for such external funds.

    The same concern could apply to the return of stolen artefacts – the case to bring these back to the countries of origin is more straightforward – as long as their original owners are able to keep these treasures safe and in condition to promote the cultural legacies of their countries and cultures. But in countries with political instability or extreme corruption, there is no guarantee that these would not be destroyed, stolen or kept in private collections. This is a case that shall be carefully pondered by both sides, and where the cultural legacy shall take priority over who hosts these.

    In spite of the horrors witnessed throughout history (and at times, still in the present) humanity has overall evolved and improved itself. We are discovering the beauty and potential in every human, no matter their origins. One of our greatest characteristics is the ability to recognise past failures, and to learn from these to build better future outcomes. Colonialism represents many of these failures, but a post-colonial world is a place where distant nations share common ties, struggles and hopes. These represent an opportunity towards development and prosperity. However, this is only possible if nations and people are able to cooperate without reservations or resentments, and able to bring to the world their best potential and examples.

    For any potential readers – what are your views on the subject of colonialism and reparations? I’d love to hear your stories and thoughts on this.